2005

GROUPS Presentation Paper Interviews

Mali

Jorunn

C5: 2 November 31 O/1 N PRES

Linda C7: Allan & Scruggs.

9 Nov

ABF & budget constraint,

SWE/NOR 7/8 Nov PRES

Lidzija

Mette Jul.

C7: Korpi; C8:

Hacker. 9 Nov

Visibility and blame avoidance

in drug cuts7/8 Nov. PRES

Unni

Anjam

C6: Briggs. 2 Nov

C8: Oliver. 9 Nov

Norway NHS: policy

enterpreneurs

Maria

Gunhild

Marthe

Janicke

C3: 19 Oct

C2: 5 Oct

Patient choice, SWE/NOR? 17/18 Oct. PRES

3 Oct.? PRES

Kjetil C4: Hoffman. 19 Oct. 17/18 OCT

2005Actor-centered theories:I. Interest groups theories

Health Politics

Ana Rico

Room L4-46, rico@bmg.eur.nl

2005

OUTLINE OF THE SESSION

1. Introduction- A. Representative and “direct” democracy

- B. Actor-centred vs. social context theories

2. Interest groups theories - A. Why do IGs & PPs emerge?

- B. Why/when do they influence policy?

- C. Which consequences for democracy?

3. The role of interest groups- A. Pluralism and corporatism

- B. Present and future of IGs politics

4. The role of political parties

2005

STEPS IN DEDUCTIVE POLICY RESEARCH

ANALYSIS

Causes = determinants

Consequences = political impact

Policy implications

DESCRIPTION

Definition Types, policy instruments

Evolution trends

- Do different types evolve differently (diverge) or similarly (converge)?

2005

Analytical framework (1):

Interest groups and democratic politics

2005

INTEREST GROUPS & POLITICAL PARTIES

• They are the sociopolitical organizations which attained policy influence earlier on in time

• Originally conceived as completely dependent on the socioeconomic structure (owners/workers) not considered an actor (=independent). (INTEREST GROUP THEORY)

• Later conceived as partly dependent, and partly independent = sociopolitical actors (ACTOR/ACTION THEORIES)

• Modern (post-1945) Constitutions in the EU give some of them formal state powers (eg parties organize parliament, IGs decide under corporatism) Some of them play simoultaneously the two roles: sociopolitical and political/state actors

• Most political parties were created by IGs to defend their interests in parliament & government (to ”privatize” the state); later on, they gained independence & become more public

2005

a. Demands and supportsb. Access to the political systemc. Decision-making

d. Institutional changee. Social impact of policyf. Distribution of costs and benefits

THE POLITICAL & SOCIAL SYSTEMS

Sociopolitical actors

Institutions

Dynamic interactions

Political actors

Policy change

POLICYPOLITICSPOLITYINPUTS

Outcomes

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM

SOCIALCONTEXT

a

c

de

b

OUTPUTS

Outputs

f

HC services

Implemen-tation

ECONOMY

SOCIETY

CULTURE

2005

TWO DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES

REPRESENTATIVE Democracy DIRECT “Democracy”

The formal, constitutional model in modern democracies, based on:

• Voters choosing political representatives (state actors)

• State actors choosing policies which reflect voters’ preferences (responsiveness)

• Voters reelecting representatives if policies favour their interests (accountability)

State Voters

The informal political process, based on interest groups/PP:

• Sociopol. organizations which claim to represent social groups

• Which exert informal pressure upon the state’s choice of policy

+ Formalized in EU, due to:

• Evidence of democratic problems (limits of formal representation, elitism, manipulation & inestability)

• If there is no intermediation between state & citizens

2005

TWO DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES

RQ 1. Who participates? (= seeks to influence policy)

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY DIRECT “DEMOCRACY”

Social context

Sociopol. context

State context

RQ 2. Who influences policy?

RQ 3. Who governs (= makes policy)?

RQ 4. How it governs (= who benefit)?

2005

TWO DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY DIRECT “DEMOCRACY”

State

Voters

Sociopol. actors

Social context

Sociopol. context

State contextMass media, public opinion, policy experts

IGs, political parties, social movem-ents

PERSUASION MEMBERSHIP

2005

PUBLIC & PRIVATE INTERESTS

0%

50%

100%

Social movements, eg Greenpeace

Political parties

Unions

Employers

Professionals

Sectoral interest groups

(Peak associations= National federations)

PU

BL

ICP

RIV

AT

E

2005

SOCIAL vs. POLITICAL THEORIES

Bussiness associations & Unions

Professional associations

Policy experts

Citizens´ preferences (= PO)

Mass media

Social movements

““FATE”FATE”

SOCIAL CONTEXT

Convergence theory

Structural theories: capitalist/working class strength depends on distribution of ownership

Cultural theories: national (anti- or statist) cultures inherited from history

Contextual theories:

unusual conjunctures, policy windows

CHANCECHANCE

CHOICECHOICE

INTERESTGROUPS (as delegates of social groups dependent on mandate)

POLITICAL ACTORS (as representatives) independent of social groups

SOCIOPOLIT. ACTORS partly independent

2005

Analytical framework (2):

Interest group theories

2005

INTEREST GROUP THEORIES

MAIN THESIS: Policy is the result of the political pressures of private interest

groups on the state, who needs their financial, knowledge and support resources

in order to change policy

WHY DO IGs EMERGE/INFLUENCE POLICY? MARXIST: The two main societal interests (owners/workers) organize and

mobilize to take control of the state; democracy/absolutism favours owners

1) PLURALISM: All social groups with a shared interest organize and mobilize

politically in order to influence policy; the state needs them

2) COLLECTIVE ACTION THEORY (Olson, Ostrom) – Rational choice:

- Only social groups with more financial resources, small size and strong political

preferences voluntarily self-organize; eg bussiness/profs. they tend to have

higher policy influence

- The rest require external mobilization/direction by elites; eg Unions, parties

their influence on policy is more difficult (maintaining internal cohesion & external

support is costly)

2005

INTEREST GROUP THEORIES

2) COLLECTIVE ACTION THEORY (Olson, Ostrom):

Arguments

The decision to engage in collective action depends on

individuals’ balance of costs/benefits

* Concentrated costs: time, effort, money, risk, information

* Collective, dispersed benefits: a) individual (marginal) impact

small; b) difficult to exclude non-participants (free-riding)

As all public goods, collective action does not pay off

On voluntary basis, it works best only in groups which are:

- A. Small (homogeneity of interests, frequent interaction, social control)

- B. Intense: strong political preferences

Otherwise requires positive (e.g. rewarding social

interaction) & negative incentives (e.g. Compulsory

participation) introduced by the state or group leaders

2005

INTEREST GROUP THEORIES

2) OTHER (mostly later) THEORIES:

The decision to engage in collective action depends on

* the intensity of political conflict across social cleaveages

(class/income, religion/values, community/ethnia), ideologies and

political issues (social structuralism)

* the extent to which there are political elites/organizations

who actively mobilize (and represent) their potential constituencies

or issue publics (power resources theories actor/action);

* the openess of democratic institutions to direct political

participation, eg neocorporatism, popular legislative initiative,

referendum (institutionalism)

NOTE: Olson’s thesis are compatible with all the above

2005

INTEREST GROUP THEORIES

WHICH CONSEQUENCES FOR DEMOCRATIC POLITICS? MARXIST: Democracy collapses, threatened first by despotism of the rich, and then

by violent revolt of the poor

PLURALISM: Quality of democracy increases all social groups are equally able

to influence policy through mobilization and competition the state should not

intervene, but let free initiative + competition reign

COLLECTIVE ACTION THEORY:

- If there is no state intervention, only small private IGs will be present

- Small, powerful IGs corrupt the quality of democracy private interests take over

the public interest

- As the size of IGs expands, they become more majority, their interests become

more public (“all-encompassing”), and their policy influence increases political

representation = quality of democracy

- The state should promote the creation of national federation of IGs, and delegate

to them some formal policy power

NOTE: The consequences of the grow of political parties for democracies are

considered minor/mainly positive visibility & accountability

2005

THE ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES

POLITICAL SOCIAL

ELECTORAL

SYSTEM

PROF. TU&BA

STATE

PE J

NATION

Co

Et/ Cult

Cl/ Prof

Gen/Age

PUBLIC

POLICIES Health care services

Bureaucracy (+ P/A)

POLITICAL SYSTEM SOCIETY

Sociopolitical organizations

NOTE: The circles symbolize parties, and the organigrams internal party organization

FaFi

2005

Descriptive evidence:

- Definition- Types of IGs/partisan politics- Role in expanding the WS- Evolution and trends

2005

DEFINITIONS

INTEREST GROUPS: Sociopolitical organizations...

With membership restricted to those sharing an objective characteristic

(employers/employees; doctors/lawyers; male/female parents;

catholic/islamic/protestant; blacks/jewish)

Main goal: to advance the interests of their members (vis-a-vis other IGs)

Secondary aim: exert political pressure = influence policy

POLITICAL PARTIES:

Membership open to anyone who supports ideology = policy platform

Main goal: attain formal government power, advance majority interests

Secondary goals: exert political pressure to advance members’ interests

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS (eg greenpeace, amnesty international):

Membership open to anyone who supports their “cause” = 1 policy issue

Main goal: political pressure influence policy to advance public interest

2005

DEFINITIONS

INTEREST GROUPS POLITICS:

Process by which IGs exert direct pressure upon government to obtain policy

influence (direct ‘democracy’)

Increasing predominance of direct IGs pressures (over citizens’ preferences/general

interest) within democracies

PARTISAN POLITICS:

Process by which political parties obtain formal & informal influence on policy,

through penetrating other sociopolitical organizations + the state

Increasing predominance of political parties within the state in representative

democracies

NOTE: Classical terminology Nowadays…

Employees

Unions Pressure groups

Interests groups

Synonymous

Social groups, social bases, constituencies

2005

TYPES

INTEREST GROUP POLITICS:

Liberal pluralism: No state intervention informal pressures

Bussiness/professions mainly

Small, fragmented IGs

Competition among them

Neocorporatism: State intervention some IGs given formal (statutory) power

Tripartite, the state mediates among conflicting IGs

Large, national IGs: Bussiness/Unions; Professionals/Insurers

Cooperation between IGs and the state

PARTISAN POLITICS:

Two-party systems: Correlated with 1 (class) cleavage; majoritarian electoral

systems; executive dominance (majority government)

Multi-party systems: Correlated with 2 or more cleavages; proportional electoral

systems; and more importance of the Parliament (coalition governments)

2005

ROLE IN EXPANDING THE WS

INTEREST GROUP POLITICS:

Liberal pluralism: The US First professionals, then insurers block NHI; Unions

weakened by employers’ pressures

(Quadagno, 2004 sociopol. actors/action theory; Navarro, 1989 IGs/structuralism)

Neocorporatism: EU Countries with statutory corporatism tend to expand the

WS more + earlier (but they also have multi-party systems)

PARTISAN POLITICS:

Countries in which SD parties strong as pressure groups + WS (NHS/SHI)

* No access to government, but still strong mobilization capacities

demonstrations, strikes, petitions, etc.

Countries in which SD parties access government + WS / NHS

2005

EVOLUTION AND TRENDS Liberal pluralism: Tends to expand & democratize, due to

- Expanded resources of the less priviledged (thanks to WS expansion)

- Increasing openess of the state to IGs consultation (policy networks)

Neocorporatism: Tends to contract formally, but expand and democratize informally, due to - Increasing criticism on private IGs holding formal government rights statutory rights increasingly supressed

- Increasing number of countries introduce neocorporatist agreements informally (with the biggest IGs)

- Increasing openess of the state to IGs consultation (policy networks)

Party sytem: little changes in number of parties, but...

- Emergence of new “issue parties”, linked to social movements

- Decreasing importance as IGs role expands

NOTE: For both IGs and PPs as political power increases, state regulation/inspection of internal activities

expands